I want to flip this question from the way it's typically asked. Rather than ask which I should get, I'm curious what you have and why. Which species are you typically photographing? Are you in a hide or in/near your car mostly? Is there something about the light quality in your common areas that requires bigger aperture, or does it matter? Do you have mobility issues that make you choose lighter kit? Something else?
Which Supertelephoto and Why?
- Thread starter jeremyjohnsonphotos
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
I currently own the 400/4.5 for Z-mount, it's my first super-telephoto and my introduction to a wildlife appropriate lens. It gets paired with a 1.4 or 2x TC on occasion, though I'm not a fan of f/9 with the 2x TC. As a first super telephoto, it's a fantastic lens. It's light enough I can throw it in my bag and hardly think about it, doesn't demand to be put on a tripod, and has crazy good optics. I don't dread carrying it, and I'm not terrified of leaving it in the car or dropping it like I would be the 400 or 600 TCs.
That all said, after nearly a year of doing some wildlife and nature work, I'm entertaining a faster and/or longer solution for our dark forests and short days.
That all said, after nearly a year of doing some wildlife and nature work, I'm entertaining a faster and/or longer solution for our dark forests and short days.
thelordofthelight
Well-known member
400mm f2.8 for me for its versatility. I photograph mammals and birds. When I photograph mammals I absolutely need 400mm and f2.8 about 50% of the time and 500-600mm reach for another 40-50%. When I photograph birds, I need upto 800mm reach, mostly 600-800mm. For me it's the 400mm f2.8 TC S lens with both the Z TCs.
fcotterill
Well-known member
The poll should allow multiple choices, as it's interesting to see the individual systems we use. The main reason is the majority of wildlife photographers need more than one telephoto to cover all subjects/scenes, unless their zooms meets these challenges.
Some of us describe reasons and respective uses of big glass here
Some of us describe reasons and respective uses of big glass here
Last edited:
As Fenton (fcotterill) points out, there are too many variables to be considered. Size, weight, price, shooting conditions/light and subject matter to name the most obvious.
For me, if money was no object, I would have the 400 f2.8 TC, 600 f4 TC and the 800 pf as well as the 400 f4.5, 600 f6.3 for those times I want to go lighter and also the 180-600 and 100-400 for when I need those for specific scenarios or travel etc. However, money is an issue and so is size and weight at times as well as light - needing a fast lens.
So, my kit at the moment is: 100-400, 180-600, 400 f2.8E FL VR, 500 pf and 800 pf. I purchased the 400 f2.8E FL VR back it 2015 when it was relatively cheap compared to the current 400 f2.8 TC which is almost TWICE the price!!! Needless to say, I can't justify that sort of expenditure at this time. Added to that, as I have become older, I don't like to lug around the 400 f2.8E FL VR at almost 4kg as the weight adds up if you need to take another few lenses and it takes up a huge amount in the backpack. The weight isn't too bad when shooting, but I would rather the 400 f2.8TC as it is 1kg lighter! The 400 f2.8 type of lens is very versatile as it is three lenses in one, a 400 f2.8, a 560 f4 and an 800 f5.6. So, I guess a 400 f2.8 TC would be my pick for me money no object. As it stands, I like all the lenses I have as they serve different purposes for different scenarios, some for travel reasons, some for weight reasons and some for price reasons.
For me, if money was no object, I would have the 400 f2.8 TC, 600 f4 TC and the 800 pf as well as the 400 f4.5, 600 f6.3 for those times I want to go lighter and also the 180-600 and 100-400 for when I need those for specific scenarios or travel etc. However, money is an issue and so is size and weight at times as well as light - needing a fast lens.
So, my kit at the moment is: 100-400, 180-600, 400 f2.8E FL VR, 500 pf and 800 pf. I purchased the 400 f2.8E FL VR back it 2015 when it was relatively cheap compared to the current 400 f2.8 TC which is almost TWICE the price!!! Needless to say, I can't justify that sort of expenditure at this time. Added to that, as I have become older, I don't like to lug around the 400 f2.8E FL VR at almost 4kg as the weight adds up if you need to take another few lenses and it takes up a huge amount in the backpack. The weight isn't too bad when shooting, but I would rather the 400 f2.8TC as it is 1kg lighter! The 400 f2.8 type of lens is very versatile as it is three lenses in one, a 400 f2.8, a 560 f4 and an 800 f5.6. So, I guess a 400 f2.8 TC would be my pick for me money no object. As it stands, I like all the lenses I have as they serve different purposes for different scenarios, some for travel reasons, some for weight reasons and some for price reasons.
RikWriter
Well-known member
I've experimented with a lot of different focal lengths through the years and found 600 f4 with the capability for 840 f5.6 to be the best to fit my needs.
I own a 500 pf right now but if the 600 pf was around 4 years ago i would have made that purchase. I shoot mostly birds and my next purchase would be the 800 6.3. For me weight and size matter.
I'm not adding a vote as I have the full range detailed covered and use all of them depending on the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
ARClark
Well-known member
My favorite at the moment is the 800 PF. My ability to travel and get around has become more limited, so over the winter I've been shooting mostly small birds (over 50 species) and wildlife in my backyard from fixed positions. The 800 PF is light enough for handholding, offers excellent reach and IQ/sharpness, and takes a 1.4x TC very well. However, it's not an ideal walkaround lens for shooting flowers and bugs or close-in small birds in sunflower fields and gardens as its MFD is 16 feet. This lens has supplanted my 500E FL as my main birding lens. The 500E is faster and IQ is about the same with a 1.4x TC at 700mm and f/5.6, but it's very heavy for handholding. I now use it mostly for low light situations.
I still own a 500 PF, which is great when moving around and very easy to handhold for extended periods. It too offers excellent IQ and works well with a 1.4x TC (700mm @ f/8). In fact AF of the combo is better on my Z8 and Z9 than on my D850. MFD is just under 10 feet, which is not ideal for macro-like closeups, but its IQ is so good that I've gotten some excellent closeups of hummingbirds, flowers and dragonflies. Interestingly, there is no Z equivalent at this focal length and f stop. The 400 f/4.5 and 600 f/6.3 are both attractive in their own rights, but I'll stick with the 500 PF for now. The only downside to it for me is the inability to program focus distance recall from a control button on a Z body. I know there are focus distance recall buttons on the lens, but I find them very awkward to access from my preferred handhold position.
For greater versatility for say when moving through gardens or fields when subjects can include flowers and bugs as well as birds, or when shooting wading birds at relatively close range, I like to use a zoom lens. I still have a 200-500, but because of its weight, I tend not to use it unless I know I'll be in situations when I need the combination of the short MFD while still having reach for birds. I tried a 180-600, but IQ of my copy was disappointing and I returned it. I might try another to see if it's any better as I like the lighter weight, wider focal range, non-telescoping AF, and better connectivity with the Z bodies.
Another alternative for walks in gardens or meadows, where insects and flowers are abundant, is the 100-400 with its short MFD, excellent IQ and relatively light weight. It's also long enough for the occasional bird that comes in close, but I don't consider it long enough as a dedicated birding lens, and it's a slow f/8 at 560mm with a 1.4x TC. I also like using the even lighter and smaller 300 PF with a TC in these situations with its 4' MFD and 420mm focal length @ f/5.6.
If money was no object, the 400mm f/2.8 TC would be tempting for its excellent versatility from shooting at f/2.8 in low light conditions to 800mm f/5.6 reach with a 2x TC. It's especially noteworthy to me that Brad Hill ranks IQ of the lens at 800mm (with 2x TC) on par with the 800 PF. However, while this is Nikon's lightest 400mm f/2.8, it's still barely hand-holdable at 6.5 lbs, and with a 9 ounce 2x TC, it's about 2 lbs heavier than the 800 PF.
I still own a 500 PF, which is great when moving around and very easy to handhold for extended periods. It too offers excellent IQ and works well with a 1.4x TC (700mm @ f/8). In fact AF of the combo is better on my Z8 and Z9 than on my D850. MFD is just under 10 feet, which is not ideal for macro-like closeups, but its IQ is so good that I've gotten some excellent closeups of hummingbirds, flowers and dragonflies. Interestingly, there is no Z equivalent at this focal length and f stop. The 400 f/4.5 and 600 f/6.3 are both attractive in their own rights, but I'll stick with the 500 PF for now. The only downside to it for me is the inability to program focus distance recall from a control button on a Z body. I know there are focus distance recall buttons on the lens, but I find them very awkward to access from my preferred handhold position.
For greater versatility for say when moving through gardens or fields when subjects can include flowers and bugs as well as birds, or when shooting wading birds at relatively close range, I like to use a zoom lens. I still have a 200-500, but because of its weight, I tend not to use it unless I know I'll be in situations when I need the combination of the short MFD while still having reach for birds. I tried a 180-600, but IQ of my copy was disappointing and I returned it. I might try another to see if it's any better as I like the lighter weight, wider focal range, non-telescoping AF, and better connectivity with the Z bodies.
Another alternative for walks in gardens or meadows, where insects and flowers are abundant, is the 100-400 with its short MFD, excellent IQ and relatively light weight. It's also long enough for the occasional bird that comes in close, but I don't consider it long enough as a dedicated birding lens, and it's a slow f/8 at 560mm with a 1.4x TC. I also like using the even lighter and smaller 300 PF with a TC in these situations with its 4' MFD and 420mm focal length @ f/5.6.
If money was no object, the 400mm f/2.8 TC would be tempting for its excellent versatility from shooting at f/2.8 in low light conditions to 800mm f/5.6 reach with a 2x TC. It's especially noteworthy to me that Brad Hill ranks IQ of the lens at 800mm (with 2x TC) on par with the 800 PF. However, while this is Nikon's lightest 400mm f/2.8, it's still barely hand-holdable at 6.5 lbs, and with a 9 ounce 2x TC, it's about 2 lbs heavier than the 800 PF.
Last edited:
I posts above give you a good idea of all the variables which you had likely considered as well.
For me, I had the 100-400 being one of the earlier releases. I wanted more like you and ordered the 180-600. Then of course the 600PF came out.
So I had to choose. I decided to keep the 100-400 and the major reason - found the 180-600 too heavy to hold for longer periods, and the close focusing of the 100-400. I don't do a lot of small birds purposefully so didn't need an 800 as a primary lens. The 600PF is a dream to carry.
I would love some faster glass, but right now I make do with this and the fact that noise processing has become so much better.
Only you can balance all these factors based on your needs.
For me, I had the 100-400 being one of the earlier releases. I wanted more like you and ordered the 180-600. Then of course the 600PF came out.
So I had to choose. I decided to keep the 100-400 and the major reason - found the 180-600 too heavy to hold for longer periods, and the close focusing of the 100-400. I don't do a lot of small birds purposefully so didn't need an 800 as a primary lens. The 600PF is a dream to carry.
I would love some faster glass, but right now I make do with this and the fact that noise processing has become so much better.
Only you can balance all these factors based on your needs.
I have the 800 pf and love it for small birds. However I mostly find it too long for anything larger. For larger animals farther out, the focal length is good, but I see atmospheric distortion. I hope to have a 600 f4 someday as most of my shooting is from stationary positions at sunset or just after. Although I’ve considered a 400 f2.8 also so I am waiting to collect more data.
The problem I face in collecting data is that I can’t see what focal length I use most (since I don’t have them) and any zooms won’t give me the aperture I need so I just wouldn’t take the shot. So I am trying to build up a history of what I think would have been best in the situation. Not the best approach, I know.
The problem I face in collecting data is that I can’t see what focal length I use most (since I don’t have them) and any zooms won’t give me the aperture I need so I just wouldn’t take the shot. So I am trying to build up a history of what I think would have been best in the situation. Not the best approach, I know.
I do shoot Nikon, but felt like the question could fit across platforms. I would see a 200-800 as somewhat similar to a 180-600 and a 100-500 as somewhat similar to a 100-400. You could explain in the comments.
800mm because of the relatively light weight and my ability to hand hold it. Generally target smaller birds and mammals.
The Nikon 600 TC is pretty close to my ideal lens, save for its size and weight (still less than my current 600mm G VR lens). But I also want/need to have a lens (or two) that is more portable. Actually, while wearing my M43 "hat" the Olympus 150-400 (500) f4.5-5.6 is just about ideal.
Garfield
Well-known member
The short answer for me is all of them.
I rely on the 100-400 mainly for close-focus garden videos.
I rely on the 180-600 for videoing moving subjects (diving/flying birds) where the range to target is always changing. I often use this lens with the 1.4TC.
I rely on the 600pf for a lightweight hiking carry.
I rely on the 800pf for very high magnification nest videos, often with the 2xTC attached and applying the 2x zoom feature providing 3200mm equivalent.
I don't own the 400TC or 600TC and will never likely buy them as I prefer to have a sable of specialty lenses for specific situations rather than have one expensive "do-it-all" lens that can't really do-it-all. But if I was to buy one I'd get the 400TC for the aperture and versatility.
I rely on the 100-400 mainly for close-focus garden videos.
I rely on the 180-600 for videoing moving subjects (diving/flying birds) where the range to target is always changing. I often use this lens with the 1.4TC.
I rely on the 600pf for a lightweight hiking carry.
I rely on the 800pf for very high magnification nest videos, often with the 2xTC attached and applying the 2x zoom feature providing 3200mm equivalent.
I don't own the 400TC or 600TC and will never likely buy them as I prefer to have a sable of specialty lenses for specific situations rather than have one expensive "do-it-all" lens that can't really do-it-all. But if I was to buy one I'd get the 400TC for the aperture and versatility.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
300 GM with/without TCs for flexibility, MFD and light weight
600 GM for ultimate image quality
600 GM for ultimate image quality
Woody Meristem
Well-known member
As a MFT user, I don't have any of them, but all my lenses have something comparable in FF if you double the focal lengths. My collection consists of the Olympus 100-400mm, Olympus 75-300mm ii and Panasonic 45-150mm and 12-32mm plus the Olympus 60mm macro and 1.4x TC. Yup, there's a lot of overlap but I use them differently depending on whether I'm walking a long distance or working from a car/blind. If it wasn't so large and heavy I'd get the new Olympus 150-600mm -- a wildlife photographer needs all the reach available at times. I haven't used a long prime lens for over 20 years (since I gave up film), they're just not versatile enough.
nmerc_photos
Well-known member
TLDR; 400 TC
I started out shooting wildlife with Canon, and then moved to Nikon. I've owned every single RF and Z telephoto lens that has been released. Some of the lenses I've owned multiple times as I goldilocks'd my way through. Admittedly I forgot this forum has shooters other than just Nikon... so my essay at the bottom is Nikon-centric.
if I were shooting Canon again, the choice is easy. RF 100-500 and RF 600 F4 and done. With Sony it is a bit more complex. I'd probably go 300 F2.8, 600 F4, and the 200-600. With Nikon, it's a whole different world with so many more attractive lenses.
I live in lower Michigan where we have few large mammals, so the majority of my local shooting is birds of prey (owls, eagles, herons, etc.) This is important, because somewhere like out west where you have bears, elk, moose, etc. will require a very different set of lenses. I do however go to the Tetons/Yellowstone at least once a year, and recently I've also been going to Hawaii/Iceland at least once a year. I will be going to Alaska in September 2025 to shoot the bears. So with a decent amount of travel - size and weight are important.
I'm 27 years old, 5'10" and about 205lbs - not in athletic shape. This matters, because I definitely prefer to handhold, and I prefer lightweight lenses.
The majority of my shooting is done near sunrise/sunset, where aperture is king. I would almost always prefer 600/800mm or longer, but I often have to make do with shorter focal lengths because even F2.8, 1/10, and 8000 ISO is quite normal.
Currently I have the Z 400TC, 600PF, and 800PF. I can't decide which zoom to pair with them, and also which PF lens to sell.
here is my quick summary of each Z lens:
Z 70-200 f2.8 - probably the most impressive zoom of the bunch. handles TC's great. generally a bit too short for my uses - really only valuable on destination trips (Puffins in Iceland, African Safari, Bears in Alaska, etc.)
Z 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 - probably the least impressive zoom of the bunch. has the worst performance of any lens I've tested with TC's. generally it is too short for my uses, especially given the TC situation. I really only value it when I am on trips involving whale watching - where even 100mm can be too long. it is a nice compact, lightweight lens, and if you are more into quasi-macro or landscape - I've heard high praise. good lens to have for travel or if weight is a significant concern.
Z 180-600 f5.6-f6.3 - for new wildlife photographers, I would call this a must have. the price to performance of this lens is outstanding. size/weight are the main downsides, but people have been using and loving the Sony 200-600 for almost 5 years now at similar size and weight. similar optical quality (in the center) as the 600/800PF. handles TC's decently well (better than many expected)
Z 400 f4.5 - another outstanding lens, at a great used price these days. often debated whether people should go for the 400 4.5 or 100-400. does the 2/3rd stop make a big enough difference to give up zoom functionality? this is a favorite walk around lens for me, as I find it to be a great 400 f4.5 or a pretty good 560 f6.3. a great option to replace an old 500 f5.6 PF. it's my 2nd in line to the 400TC for when walking local woods looking for owls in low light.
Z 600 f6.3 - this is the most fun telephoto lens I've used from any brand. if you have good light, this lens will not disappoint. to have 600mm at the size and weight of a 70-200 is incredible. it handles TC's very well, with the only downside being the f9/f13 apertures. it rivals IQ of the 400/600TC, and 800PF.
Z 800 f6.3 - another outstanding lens. the fact that it can rival the Sony 600GM F4 + 1.4x or Canon RF 600 F4 + 1.4x while being 2lbs lighter, 5" shorter, and almost $10,000 cheaper is insane value. biggest downside is the MFD. size/weight can also be an issue as it is larger than the 400TC. the undisputed small bird king. although I don't use it often, I can't seem to part with it. 800 f6.3, 1120 f9, and 1600 f13 are too versatile.
Z 400 TC f2.8 - I think this is the best lens in the line up. consistently the sharpest in tests and real world. produces amazing photos, and the flexibility of 400 f2.8/560 f4 is awesome. when I shot Canon, I never used my RF 400 f2.8 because it was often too short. the built in TC changes that completely for Nikon. It is like having both the RF 400 F2.8 and RF 600 F4 in one lens. when I see my own photos, and especially photos from better pros - this lens always stands out and can produce jaw dropping images.
Z 600 TC f4 - the jack of all trades, master of none. at MSRP, and with the 800 6.3 existing - it's a hard pick. the 800 6.3 is significantly cheaper and lighter, and offers almost indistinguishable IQ as the Z 600 + 1.4x engaged, with only 1/3 loss of light. I'd really only suggest this to people who mainly shoot at 600 f4, and value 840 f5.6 more than 400 f2.8. the 600 is the longest and heaviest lens offered in the Z line. the 11% increased weight and 15% increased length over the 400TC makes it that more difficult to pack, carry, and shoot handheld. I wanted so badly to love this lens (my main lens when I shot Canon was the 600 F4) but with all the other great Nikon options, I just don't see it winning in any value propositions. its main strength would be to replace both the 400TC + 800PF, if you can stand giving up 400 F2.8 and having the increased length/weight. I will probably own it again some time in the future, just to double check my thoughts because it was so underwhelming for me.
fortunately with Nikon and these offerings, there is really no way to go wrong. no matter what you find most important (value proposition, size, weight, IQ, versatility, etc.), Nikon has something that will be a great fit for you.
I started out shooting wildlife with Canon, and then moved to Nikon. I've owned every single RF and Z telephoto lens that has been released. Some of the lenses I've owned multiple times as I goldilocks'd my way through. Admittedly I forgot this forum has shooters other than just Nikon... so my essay at the bottom is Nikon-centric.
if I were shooting Canon again, the choice is easy. RF 100-500 and RF 600 F4 and done. With Sony it is a bit more complex. I'd probably go 300 F2.8, 600 F4, and the 200-600. With Nikon, it's a whole different world with so many more attractive lenses.
I live in lower Michigan where we have few large mammals, so the majority of my local shooting is birds of prey (owls, eagles, herons, etc.) This is important, because somewhere like out west where you have bears, elk, moose, etc. will require a very different set of lenses. I do however go to the Tetons/Yellowstone at least once a year, and recently I've also been going to Hawaii/Iceland at least once a year. I will be going to Alaska in September 2025 to shoot the bears. So with a decent amount of travel - size and weight are important.
I'm 27 years old, 5'10" and about 205lbs - not in athletic shape. This matters, because I definitely prefer to handhold, and I prefer lightweight lenses.
The majority of my shooting is done near sunrise/sunset, where aperture is king. I would almost always prefer 600/800mm or longer, but I often have to make do with shorter focal lengths because even F2.8, 1/10, and 8000 ISO is quite normal.
Currently I have the Z 400TC, 600PF, and 800PF. I can't decide which zoom to pair with them, and also which PF lens to sell.
here is my quick summary of each Z lens:
Z 70-200 f2.8 - probably the most impressive zoom of the bunch. handles TC's great. generally a bit too short for my uses - really only valuable on destination trips (Puffins in Iceland, African Safari, Bears in Alaska, etc.)
Z 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 - probably the least impressive zoom of the bunch. has the worst performance of any lens I've tested with TC's. generally it is too short for my uses, especially given the TC situation. I really only value it when I am on trips involving whale watching - where even 100mm can be too long. it is a nice compact, lightweight lens, and if you are more into quasi-macro or landscape - I've heard high praise. good lens to have for travel or if weight is a significant concern.
Z 180-600 f5.6-f6.3 - for new wildlife photographers, I would call this a must have. the price to performance of this lens is outstanding. size/weight are the main downsides, but people have been using and loving the Sony 200-600 for almost 5 years now at similar size and weight. similar optical quality (in the center) as the 600/800PF. handles TC's decently well (better than many expected)
Z 400 f4.5 - another outstanding lens, at a great used price these days. often debated whether people should go for the 400 4.5 or 100-400. does the 2/3rd stop make a big enough difference to give up zoom functionality? this is a favorite walk around lens for me, as I find it to be a great 400 f4.5 or a pretty good 560 f6.3. a great option to replace an old 500 f5.6 PF. it's my 2nd in line to the 400TC for when walking local woods looking for owls in low light.
Z 600 f6.3 - this is the most fun telephoto lens I've used from any brand. if you have good light, this lens will not disappoint. to have 600mm at the size and weight of a 70-200 is incredible. it handles TC's very well, with the only downside being the f9/f13 apertures. it rivals IQ of the 400/600TC, and 800PF.
Z 800 f6.3 - another outstanding lens. the fact that it can rival the Sony 600GM F4 + 1.4x or Canon RF 600 F4 + 1.4x while being 2lbs lighter, 5" shorter, and almost $10,000 cheaper is insane value. biggest downside is the MFD. size/weight can also be an issue as it is larger than the 400TC. the undisputed small bird king. although I don't use it often, I can't seem to part with it. 800 f6.3, 1120 f9, and 1600 f13 are too versatile.
Z 400 TC f2.8 - I think this is the best lens in the line up. consistently the sharpest in tests and real world. produces amazing photos, and the flexibility of 400 f2.8/560 f4 is awesome. when I shot Canon, I never used my RF 400 f2.8 because it was often too short. the built in TC changes that completely for Nikon. It is like having both the RF 400 F2.8 and RF 600 F4 in one lens. when I see my own photos, and especially photos from better pros - this lens always stands out and can produce jaw dropping images.
Z 600 TC f4 - the jack of all trades, master of none. at MSRP, and with the 800 6.3 existing - it's a hard pick. the 800 6.3 is significantly cheaper and lighter, and offers almost indistinguishable IQ as the Z 600 + 1.4x engaged, with only 1/3 loss of light. I'd really only suggest this to people who mainly shoot at 600 f4, and value 840 f5.6 more than 400 f2.8. the 600 is the longest and heaviest lens offered in the Z line. the 11% increased weight and 15% increased length over the 400TC makes it that more difficult to pack, carry, and shoot handheld. I wanted so badly to love this lens (my main lens when I shot Canon was the 600 F4) but with all the other great Nikon options, I just don't see it winning in any value propositions. its main strength would be to replace both the 400TC + 800PF, if you can stand giving up 400 F2.8 and having the increased length/weight. I will probably own it again some time in the future, just to double check my thoughts because it was so underwhelming for me.
fortunately with Nikon and these offerings, there is really no way to go wrong. no matter what you find most important (value proposition, size, weight, IQ, versatility, etc.), Nikon has something that will be a great fit for you.
600mm TC - small birds, photo trips to Africa and such places where wildlife is at a distance, f4 aperture for very narrow DOF enabling subject isolation and shooting in low light
400mm f4.5 and 100-400 - handholdable, takes TCs very well - animals, BIFs. 400mm is better than 100-400 in the 325-400mm range....
400mm f4.5 and 100-400 - handholdable, takes TCs very well - animals, BIFs. 400mm is better than 100-400 in the 325-400mm range....
Archibald
Well-known member
Canon user here. I had the RF 800mm f/11 (fixed focal length and fixed aperture) because I needed reach for wildlife. Then Canon came out with the stellar RF 100-500mm L. I found that at 500mm it outresolved the 800. So I got rid of the 800.
Focal length isn't everything.
Focal length isn't everything.
It's hard for me to see the 600mm TC as "master of none." It's sharp, versatile, and not all that heavy. As far as I can see its only drawback is that it is not consistently handholdable. For birds, especially, the advantage of 600mm over 400mm is HUGE. In fact, I cannot see why a bird photographer would choose the 400mm f2.8 over the 600mm f4, period. If I owned the 400mm TC I would be using the TC 90% of the time, which means it's the wrong lens for me.
The drawback to the 600mm TC is its absurdly high price, period. It's the lens I covet the most but don't own because my wife would hit the proverbial roof were I to buy one. It's sad that I could sell virtually all of my other (older, outdated) Nikon mount tele lenses and still not have enough to pay the full price of the 600 TC.
The drawback to the 600mm TC is its absurdly high price, period. It's the lens I covet the most but don't own because my wife would hit the proverbial roof were I to buy one. It's sad that I could sell virtually all of my other (older, outdated) Nikon mount tele lenses and still not have enough to pay the full price of the 600 TC.
nmerc_photos
Well-known member
I concur with this. The RF 100-500 is a stellar lens. It's the only thing from Canon that I miss. Such a versatile wildlife, landscape, quasi-macro lens. and that extra 100mm makes a bigger difference than I'd ever imagined, over say the Z 100-400.
I really did enjoy the RF 800 F11 as well though. It makes a great "documenting" lens. In good light you can get good pictures, but most of the time I found I used it just as proof of life due to f11.
I agree, it's hard for me to say it as well. I just find that Nikon did such a good job with the 600/800 PF, that it diminishes the value of the 600TC. It should be seen less as a dig to the 600TC, and more as a nod to the outstanding PF lenses that have been produced.
You have 3 lenses that are all very similar and produce similar results (600TC, 600PF, 800PF). I could see the argument for the 600TC over the 600PF because it's 1.33 stops of light. But between the 600TC and 800PF, it's the 800PF almost every time. the 1/3 stop of light is negligible, but the 37% weight reduction and $9800 savings are not.
As for the 400TC vs 600TC, the 400TC can act like the 600TC - but not the other way around. The 400 + 1.4x + 1.4x is very similar to the 600 + 1.4x. So the 400 can double as a 560 f4 and 784 f5.6 as needed.
I heard somewhere that the framing difference between the 400/600 is 7'. meaning if you could get 7' closer to your subject, the 400 would have the same reach as the 600. no idea if it's true or not, but it seems to be the case. as I've gotten better at approaching my subjects, I've felt less need for further focal lengths.
I think it's important to distinguish what birds you are shooting. The majority of my birds are larger - so the 400 f2.8 is perfect. I use it at 400 about 80% of the time, and 560 about 20% of the time.
As a counterpoint to the bird thing, I have several friends who specialize in small birds (warblers, hummingbirds, etc.) and still use the 400TC as their main driver. if you can close the gap on your subjects, it works well. even if you cannot - you then have opportunity for environmental portraits.
Last edited:
I wasn't sure if this applied only to full-frame sensors, or any sensor. I picked 100-400mm because that is what I mostly use with my Nikon D500, an APS-C DSLR. The 100-400mm has the same field of view as a 150-600mm lens on a full-frame camera, but is quite a bit smaller and lighter than a typical 150-600mm lens. I find the focal-length range to be very versatile, which is probably why 100-400mm and 150-600mm lenses are popular.
RikWriter
Well-known member
Have you thought about their new 200-800?